Is adoption sinful?

[surritter]

I understand the Catholic teaching on this stuff. Now although I agree with some of their teachings, I also disagree with some of their teachings. This is on I disagree with so it would be useless for me to read more about the Catholic teaching on this stuff.

Since you disagree, you refuse to read explanations that might make the teaching more plausible? That doesn’t sound like a good approach to theological discussion.

So if you don’t have intercourse you are not good enough to have a child? Isn’t that the same as birth control? You are denying life.

Who said anything about being “good enough”? God designed intercourse to sometimes result in a child. And intercourse is designed to be an expression of love between a man and a woman. Connect the dots between those two statements: love and life are inextricably connected. Just because science can find a way to circumvent the process doesn’t make it moral.

The issue is not having a child vs. being childless. The issue is separating the sexual act from the transmission of life. This is the aspect that I recommend you read more about. It’s actually very logical.

I look at all aspects them, use what God gave me, the ability to make up my own mind, not what one religion or person wants me to believe. You see things one way, and I respect that, I see things in a different way.

You agree with some Catholic teachings, but disagree with others. The next question is: what is the determining factor that tips the scales as to whether you agree with a particular teaching?

You say that you use your own mind to decide what is moral. That might have some merit, but what if another person uses his God-given mind and comes up with the opposite conclusion? You saying that two people can look at the same action and get opposite answers about the morality of the action, and they are both correct. Do you see any flaw in that logic?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

How could it possibly be sinful to provide a loving home to a child that either has no parents, or has unfit parents?

The Church encourages adoption. In fact, many Church agencies assist with the adoption of children. Many orphanages operated by religious encouraged adoptions of their children.

My wife and her younger sister were adopted, through the church, back in 1950. It was their parish priest that arranged the adoption (which had to meet all state rules and regulations). They were officially adopted, through court action, in 1951. Their original baptismal records were modified, to show their adoptive parents as their parents (This is the ONLY way that such documents can be changed).

In fact, adopting a child is a true blessing.

 

[Newbie2]

Artifical insemination should be ok to the Catholic faith because after all shouldn’t you “be fruitful and mulitply.” And if one can’t be fruitful but wants to multiply there should be no problem.

Sorry if this sound uncharitable, but I’ve searched for other ways to say this, but…

…do you even realize how simplistic this argument sounds?

Sigh…I can’t believe I’m even considering countering this, but here goes. If we go simply by “be fruitful and multiply”, why not “do” every member of the opposite sex that you meet? Isn’t that fulfilling that command? Married or not, of age of consent or not, just procreate.

Sound stupid? It’s meant to. I’m illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

On the basis you ask? On the basis that I don’t believe them.Where does it say that I have to believe the CC on everything?

YOU do not. Catholics pretty much do, although we are allowed to “struggle” (privately) with certain teachings that we either don’t fully understand and don’t agree with at face value.

If you don’t go by what the CC says you are uninformed.

Yes, that is correct. This is a Catholic forum, afterall.

Could be we are informed and that scares the CC.

Only if we are informed incorrectly.

They don’t think you are smart enough to see things for your own self, you need them to do it for you because they know better.

Seriously? Is the anti-institutionalized religion argument the best you can do?
Why do I have to explain why I know better then the Church.

Because you’re putting yourself out as an authority on scriptural and moral matters.
.

So if you can’t have children the “normal way” your out of luck according the the CC teaching. Children are a gift from God and gifts come in many different ways. If the gift can’t be done in the “normal way” intercourse, then the gift can come in a different way.

Yep. It’s called “adoption”.

If the CC denies a couple who can’t have children the “natural way” isn’t that a form of birth control?

No.

To me that’s a sin to deny one God’s gift.

You deny the connection between sexuality and the gift of children.

A guy “auditioning his finger puppets” into a jar…

Never heard that one before.

But back to the OP, no, adoption is not sinful.

 

[joandarc2008]

And he didn’t say it was ok for Abraham. No where does it say that God condoned Abraham sleeping with Hagar or that it was God’s idea. It was Sarah’s idea for Abraham to sleep with Hagar. It was Sarah’s idea for Abraham to commit adultery. The covenant of a son was not the covenant with Hagar but with his wife Sarah. In Genesis 17:19 God said, “Sarah your wife will bear you a son…and I will confirm my everlasting covenant with him and his descendants. As for Ishmael, I will bless him also…but my covenant is with Isaac who will be born to you and Sarah about this time next year.”

And isn’t it nice when one can lead the blind into their own answer?

 

[rev_kevin]

And isn’t it nice when one can lead the blind into their own answer?

Blind Instead of being sarcastic why don’t you have a real comment.

 

[kentuckyliz]

If the Catholic Church thinks we’re obligated to be fruitful and multiply, then why don’t we hold candlelight vigils to grieve every month a Catholic woman menstruates? That’s a potential life lost!

 

[rev_kevin]

Sorry if this sound uncharitable, but I’ve searched for other ways to say this, but…

…do you even realize how simplistic this argument sounds?

Sigh…I can’t believe I’m even considering countering this, but here goes. If we go simply by “be fruitful and multiply”, why not “do” every member of the opposite sex that you meet? Isn’t that fulfilling that command? Married or not, of age of consent or not, just procreate.

Sound stupid? It’s meant to. I’m illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Oh sorry I didn’t say married couples. I thought you would enough sense to know that is what I meant but I see you don’t so I must spell everything out to you so you won’t go the the extreme and be absurd.

I know its a Catholic forum but I can give my opinion as a non-Catholic.

Its only incorrect because its not the Catholic view or belief.

Its done to us non-Catholics all the time.

I never said I was a authority on anything, you are assuming that is what I am doing. I have said plenty of times here on the CAF that its my belief or its my opinion.

Yes adoption is a option but if they want their own child they should be allowed to have one. You still have not shown any Scripture to say its wrong.

Yes it is IMO you are denying this couple to have a child of their own and if you deny them the child you are controlling birth. You are saying who can and who can’t have their own child. Its just a different way of birht control.

No body says they can’t have sex, but if they can’t get pregnant that way and want a child of their own and they are denied that then yes it is a sin because you are denying a child to come into this world, you are denying life.

Show me in Scripture that it is wrong and a sin. Not just because the CC says it wrong.



Never heard that one before.

But back to the OP, no, adoption is not sinful.

 

[joandarc2008]

Blind Instead of being sarcastic why don’t you have a real comment.

Because I had already the real point which you just underlined which is that you were taking the story out of context to suit your point. But there is no point in arguing with some one who is only here to Proseletyze. So the question was asked from a Catholic viewpoint on a Catholic website why don’t you let the poster have a Catholic answer?

 

[joandarc2008]

If the Catholic Church thinks we’re obligated to be fruitful and multiply, then why don’t we hold candlelight vigils to grieve every month a Catholic woman menstruates? That’s a potential life lost!

Life begins at conception - I don’t think any of the arguments here have gone against that.

Because it is important to take things in the context they are written. This means being both procreative and unitive when meeting in the marital act. In the historical sense it meant that the group that left the Ark needed to marry and bare children in order to further mankind. This is the problem with taking the Bible out of context.

There are great instructions for learning how to read the Bible within proper context: (If your comment was made tongue in cheek I apologize but it is hard to read tone on the internet)

Dei Verbum

 

[rev_kevin]

Since you disagree, you refuse to read explanations that might make the teaching more plausible? That doesn’t sound like a good approach to theological discussion.

Who said anything about being “good enough”? God designed intercourse to sometimes result in a child. And intercourse is designed to be an expression of love between a man and a woman. Connect the dots between those two statements: love and life are inextricably connected. Just because science can find a way to circumvent the process doesn’t make it moral.

The issue is not having a child vs. being childless. The issue is separating the sexual act from the transmission of life. This is the aspect that I recommend you read more about. It’s actually very logical.

You agree with some Catholic teachings, but disagree with others. The next question is: what is the determining factor that tips the scales as to whether you agree with a particular teaching?

You say that you use your own mind to decide what is moral. That might have some merit, but what if another person uses his God-given mind and comes up with the opposite conclusion? You saying that two people can look at the same action and get opposite answers about the morality of the action, and they are both correct. Do you see any flaw in that logic?

I guess you failed to read the first part where I said, “I understand the Catholic teachings on this stuff.”

I didn’t say anyone said anything about being good enough. What I meant, and I quess I have to be nor specific, is if you can’t have a child through normal means, then you are not good enough to have a child. Thats what I got from the Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC2377 that was posted by Dakota Roberts.
Yes intercourse is designed to be a expression of love between a man and woman, I believe this would be a married couple, no body is denying this kind of love expression. But what you are failing to see is that if a married couple can’t have a child in that way, intercourse, then they should be able to have a child by artifical means.
Science has found way to do a lot of things. If a child is born with some kind of defect is it moral for science to fix that defect if it is not life threatening?
If you had a child that needed something to save its life but was considered immoral by the CC would you let your child live or die?

If a person can’t have a child the normal way through sexual intercourse why should they be denied a child of their own?

What tips the scale. If it seem logical to me, If it make sense to me. How would I feel if it were me. Just a feeling I get, call it a gut feeling. If it seems far fetched or not. What Scripture says. Just to name a few.

Yes that is what I’m saying and no I don’t see the flaw. What seems right to one may not be right for the other. It depends on the situation. Is it right to be a solder and fight for freedom? Some may say no its not right to be a solder and fight for freedom, while another person may say yes its right to be solder anf fight for freedom. Both use their God given mind to come up with 2 different conclusions if its moral or not. Both are correct. If you have a child that needs something to save their life and the morallity of it may be in question, one may say yes save his/her life while someone else may say no. Wouldn’t both be correct?

 

[rev_kevin]

Because I had already the real point which you just underlined which is that you were taking the story out of context to suit your point. But there is no point in arguing with some one who is only here to Proseletyze. So the question was asked from a Catholic viewpoint on a Catholic website why don’t you let the poster have a Catholic answer?

Not taking it out of context, read what it says.

I’m not here to Proseletyze. I’m not here trying to convert people to my religion, I won’t and don’t do that and I never have. Give me one example of me Proseletyzing. Show me where I said I want someone to change to my religion. You can’t because I have not so please don’t accuse me of something unless you have something to back your accuations up.

I believe the poster has got the Catholic view point.

I see, I’m questioning your beliefs and you can’t deal with. I don’t see where it say Moral Theology for Catholics only. Yes this is a Catholic website but it is also open to other religions.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.

 

[surritter]

I guess you failed to read the first part where I said, “I understand the Catholic teachings on this stuff.”

Sorry for my confusion on this. From your comments, it simply appeared that you do understand all of the background and logic of the Catholic teaching on morality. I don’t mean that to be snide; there just seemed to be holes in your post that are clearly addressed by our beliefs.

I didn’t say anyone said anything about being good enough. What I meant, and I guess I have to be more specific, is if you can’t have a child through normal means, then you are not good enough to have a child. Thats what I got from the Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC2377 that was posted by Dakota Roberts.
Yes intercourse is designed to be a expression of love between a man and woman, I believe this would be a married couple, no body is denying this kind of love expression. But what you are failing to see is that if a married couple can’t have a child in that way, intercourse, then they should be able to have a child by artificial means.
Science has found way to do a lot of things. If a child is born with some kind of defect is it moral for science to fix that defect if it is not life threatening?
If you had a child that needed something to save its life but was considered immoral by the CC would you let your child live or die?
If a person can’t have a child the normal way through sexual intercourse why should they be denied a child of their own?

This is the part where I again have to question if you really do understand Catholic teachings on this stuff. Surgery to correct a defect or to save a life is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT moral question than the meaning and proper use of the gift of sexuality. Instead of trying to come up with a quick response, please think about these differences first. (If you wish to steer toward a discussion about these other medical procedures, I’d be glad to do so, but it’s a different question. To address that specific issue, of course it is moral to help correct birth defects. But you would agree that there must be some sort of limit on what can be done. For example, we can’t kill another person to use an organ to save the infant’s life.)

What tips the scale. If it seem logical to me, If it make sense to me. How would I feel if it were me. Just a feeling I get, call it a gut feeling. If it seems far fetched or not. What Scripture says. Just to name a few.

Respectfully, that is where the problem lies. You are the arbiter of what makes sense. (Scripture is a better source than your gut, but even that requires interpretation, does it not?)

Yes that is what I’m saying and no I don’t see the flaw. What seems right to one may not be right for the other. It depends on the situation. Is it right to be a solder and fight for freedom? Some may say no its not right to be a solder and fight for freedom, while another person may say yes its right to be solder anf fight for freedom. Both use their God given mind to come up with 2 different conclusions if its moral or not. Both are correct. If you have a child that needs something to save their life and the morallity of it may be in question, one may say yes save his/her life while someone else may say no. Wouldn’t both be correct?

The analogy of a soldier doesn’t really apply here, because war is not intrinsically evil. A soldier’s job sometimes involves violence by necessity (self-defense, for instance). But to have a child is not something that is an intrinsic necessity.

So let’s use an analogy that has intrinsic immorality – bestiality – and then appeal to simple logic. If your “feeling” says that bestiality is wrong, but my “feeling” is that it’s right, then your last response clearly says that bestiality can be OK for me, but not for you. Now do you see any flaw in the moral code that you have proposed?

 

[Flame4]

I think people often complain that the church requires each sexual act to be open to life. Well it kind of works the other way around as well. The Church requires that children only be concieved within the sexual act.
Love and life go together. That was how God created the world. He was so full of love
( well he IS love) that he created life.

IVF is not wrong because a woman is carrying another person’s child, but because life (the child) is not created within love (the sexual act.) Therefore, regular adoption is fine…great in fact!

 

[joandarc2008]

I think people often complain that the church requires each sexual act to be open to life. Well it kind of works the other way around as well. The Church requires that children only be concieved within the sexual act.
Love and life go together. That was how God created the world. He was so full of love
( well he IS love) that he created life.

IVF is not wrong because a woman is carrying another person’s child, but because life (the child) is not created within love (the sexual act.) Therefore, regular adoption is fine…great in fact!

This is an excellent post - and if we have any more questions and want to go solely on Sola Scriptura lets go back to Abraham and Sarah. Yes, Abraham did impregnate his slave. And she became the Mother of all Islam. And now we have War in the Middle East as both her descendants and the descendants of Sarah were promised prosperity in the lands. So I cannot think of a better argument in the Bible against surrogacy or IVF. God bless.

 

[smichhertz]

Yes I know it was done as a part of a Covenant directly with God sealed in fire but if it was good and sealed by God then, why is it bad now? What made God change his mind? When did God say, this is a bad thing? So if God says its OK to have extramarrital relations with someone who isn’t your wife so you can have a child its not considered adultery because God said you can do it and it wasn’t pleasurable. But today you don’t have to have extermarrital relations with a woman in order to have a child and its considered a sin. Whats wrong with this picture. Its ok to have extramarrital sex to have a child back then and its not a sin but today if you don’t have to have extramarrital sex to have a child and use artifical means its a sin. :banghead:

In the OT it was also permissible to have multiple wives, own slaves, divorce, etc. Jesus mentions that it was because of the “hardness of hearts” that such things were permitted. Now that we have the full revelation, the sacraments, restored friendship with God, etc., we also have the obligation to follow the full moral law.

It may be helpful to view these things from the perspective of a lost friendship with God. Kind of like if you have a friend, and then you have a falling out, you no longer expect the behavior of a friend from him. Similarly, during the OT (after the fall) God and man lost friendship and so man was no longer expected to live as a friend of God, but as a creature of God.

Don’t get frustrated! I know sometimes the teachings can be very hard. Look to the example of Peter in John 6. When many of the disciples said “this teaching is hard” and left, he instead admitted that he had no idea how such a teaching could be true, but still followed Jesus because he trusted in God. I’m sure if you hold to your faith, God will reveal His Truth to you in good time. Best of luck! I will pray for you.

 

[Felching]

I urinate on fertilized embryos for fun. NOT A HUMAN JUST A GLOB OF CELLULAR MATERIAL.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

First of all, do please forgive me if I reply to a post that is considered “too old”; I can never figure out when a post is or isn’t considered such.

I had this same question just now and did a search, finding this particular thread.

My question arose from the fact that the adopting and raising of another person’s child is separated from any sexual union on the part of the parents doing the adopting. Is not the raising of children in a family unit always to be as a result of the sexual act, as the creation of children is considered inseparable from the natural sexual union? Therefore, if you get children to raise apart from the natural sexual union, I was wondering whether such was sinful. This is how I can see adoption being considered as sinful.

Thoughts? Since adoption results in parents who have not had sexual union having a child, should it not be considered just as sinful as, say, IVF or surrogacy?

 

[surritter]

That is certainly not sinful. The act of creating a child is rightfully within marriage. But obviously stuff might happen after the child’s creation that render the parents unfit to do the raising. Thus, adoption can be an act of charity; it has nothing to do with the sexual act itself.